You can tell how much Washington, D.C. is panicking by the rise of grassroots politics by looking at the now weekly declarations by politicians and pundits that they actually hate democracy. That’s hyperbole, you say? Just take a look at a few comments that have come from the upper echelons of the political/media establishment - comments that finally admit to us how those who purport to legislate and report in our name really in their gut despise American democracy.

Two days after Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in the primary, New York Times columnist David Brooks announced that voters shouldn’t be allowed to decide elections. Yes, that’s right - he wrote:

“Polarized primary voters shouldn’t be allowed to define the choices in American politics."

This week, New Republic editor Peter Beinart publicly celebrated the corporate-funded Democratic Leadership Council for its effort to insulate politicians from accountability to voters - actually claiming with a straight face that such insulation means politicians will better represent voters:

“The DLC remains an organization of politicians that believes the less beholden politicians are to grassroots activists, the better they will represent voters as a whole.”

Then, just a few days ago, the Bush administration quietly acknowledged it doesn’t care about democracy in Iraq - that is, it doesn’t care about the fake rationale the administration gave for the war after WMD weren’t found. Buried in a New York Times story, a military expert who had been given a White House briefing on Iraq said:

“‘Senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy‘ in Iraq.”

At the end of the week, the Associated Press caught U.S. Sen. Conrad Burns (R-MT) giving the big middle-finger to American voters when it comes to Iraq, saying that no matter how much voters oppose the Iraq War, the war must go on. The AP reported:

“Sen. Conrad Burns said the U.S. must show ‘great patience and resolve’ and stay in Iraq even if public support for the war continues to erode.”

Now, in a New York Times piece today about YouTube, New Republic writer Ryan Lizza opines that YouTube’s ability to broadcast politicians’ public statements to the masses may change politics “not for the better.” Democratic strategist Howard Wolfson correctly points out that such technology “create(s) more accountability and more democratization of information in the process…This allows you to avoid the middleman.” But that increased level of democracy, accountability and direct access to politicians seems to make Lizza uncomfortable, and clearly makes the Bush White House nervous. They decry some unproven damage to the “political discourse” as a means of trying to hide their disdain for democracy, and their hatred that people increasingly do not have to rely on media or consultant middlemen for information. Apparently, to these insiders, there’s something horribly wrong with a democratic system that, before election day, lets voters know that their U.S. Senator or their leading congressional candidate is an open racist. Here’s the New York Times excerpt:

“Matthew Dowd, a longtime strategist for President Bush who is now a partner in a social networking Internet venture, Hot Soup, looks at the YouTube-ization of politics, and sees the ‘death of spontaneity. It’s taken some richness out of the political discourse…There’s no, ‘Is this the right thing for political discourse?’ It’s just there.’“

This is a landmark, folks. Usually, the establishment hides its hatred for democracy in vague rhetoric. But now, scared for their relevance and angry that their elitist sensibilities are being offended by ordinary voters, their loathing is all out in the open. Pundits and politicians in Washington are publicly telling American voters that we do not matter, and that they believe we should not matter.

But don’t get depressed - they are saying this because they realize that we actually DO matter, and they are scared. They are trying to once again make people believe we really have no power - when what’s becoming obvious is that ordinary people have power to change things when we get organized. What’s becoming obvious, in short, is that the politicians, pundits and insiders in Washington who pretend to control everything ultimately do not control anything when ordinary citizens decide enough is enough and fight back. The harder we fight, the more success we will have - and the more the establishment will gnash its teeth at democracy. But rest assured - the more declarations they make like the ones above, the more we are scaring the hell out of them.

Finally, oh thank God finally, the Washington media elite is making it easy. Usually, D.C.'s professional pundits, pontificators and partisan puppets very carefully package their language to hide their real motives and their real beliefs. But this week following the primary defeat of Sen. Joe Lieberman by first-time candidate Ned Lamont, America is witnessing a good-old-fashioned watershed moment: the perfume is off, the restraint is removed, and the ugly, rancid, sweaty-lockerroom stench of truth is there for all of us commoners to waft. Sniff up, contain your dry heaving, and you will finally understand that all the talk of the Establishment's disdain for ordinary citizens is not just talk or conspiracy theory - it's very real, and very powerful. Take, for instance, New York Times columnist David Brooks's piece yesterday - it is arguably the most brazen admission of elite disdain for democracy that has ever been printed in a major American newspaper. Before you dismiss that as hyperbole, read the third line of Brooks' piece:

"Polarized primary voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics."

Yes, you read that correctly: According to one of the most prominent columnists in America, "voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics." Sure, he tries to couch his statement by targeting "polarized primary voters" (because, of course, in the world of David Brooks - a chickenhawk who avoided military service himself but aggressively pushed the Iraq War - the 60 percent of Americans who are now "polarized" in opposition to the war should have their voting rights immediately revoked). But his underlying message is, again, right there in black and white: "Voters shouldn't be allowed to define the choices in American politics." Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the first major American newspaper columnist (at least in my generation) to officially go on record publicly demanding that American democracy be substitued with dictatorship - and one undoubtedly run by a small, bodyguarded council, cloistered in a luxury Manhattan high-rise, made up of David Brooks, a few of his country-club golfing buddies and maybe - if Davey decides billionaire Tom Friedman is deserving enough - a few other select New York Times columnists.

But no, folks, it gets better. Brooks goes on to offer up the transparently dishonest claim that "Lamont's voters are rich." As evidenced by its repitition, this lie is clearly a talking point crafted right in the Republican National Committee headquarters, Joe Lieberman's campaign offices - or most likely, both. For instance, right-wing pundit Michael Barone wrote in the Wall Street Journal today that Lamont did not win "the lunch-bucket working class" in Connecticut, but instead was propelled to victory by "the secular transnational professional class" - an attempt, like Brooks, to portray Lamont's victory as just a product of a few wealthy limousine liberal voters. Barone then tops off his tirade with an attack on Lamont, for being "one of several members of a Democratic caucus who have made, inherited or married big money." Barone anger at Lamont for this doesn't seem to be tempered by the fact that Barone himself became famous for marrying into the billionaire Shorenstein family.

How do we know this is a lie? Just take a look at the results. Lamont not only won 7 out of 8 of Connecticut's counties, but he specifically won the poorest, most working-class areas of the state. For instance, Lamont won New Haven. That's not only Lieberman's hometown, but also "the seventh poorest community in the United States," according to the Department of Education, where "one out of every four citizens lives in poverty," according to the Yale Daily News. Lamont also won Hartford, the second-poorest city in America - one the American City Business Journals recently noted "is burdened with more socioeconomic stress than any other major city in the United States." It's possible that Brooks and Barone's only firsthand knowledge of Connecticut is their treks circumventing these working-class bastions and heading to the state's lavish vacation spots - but more likely, they knew what the results meant, but deliberately decided to ignore the facts.

Finally, there was ABC News political director Mark Halperin appearing on Charlie Rose's PBS show doing his best, funniest, most slapstick stand-up comic routine - only he was being deadly serious and thinking he was making a very astute point, while everyone was likely laughing. He eagerly declared as fact that "every Democrat who is prominent now...the Republicans have succeeded in defining as weak, Jane Fonda-type Democrats." Halperin - the guy who brags to Washington insiders about how much of a genius he is for supposedly possessing up-to-the-minute knowledge of all political news, polling and data - made this comment one day after the Washington Post released its major nationwide poll showing voters trust Democrats to do a better job of fighting terrorism. In fact, Halperin's own employer, ABC News, reported less than a year ago that its polling showed Democrats had pulled even with the GOP on fighting terrorism. But no, that annoying reality didn't fit nicely into Halperin's pre-packaged storyline - and so he ignored the facts, grabbed for the most cliched stereotypes he could summon, and created his own hysterically laughable fantasy. It was as breathless, hysterical, crazed, unsupported and insulting as Joe Lieberman today telling a local Connecticut paper that a Lamont win in the general election would be a "tremendous victory" for terrorists like those who "wanted to blow up these planes" in the stymied Al Qaeda plot in England.You can usually tell when you are becoming frightening to the powers that be when they begin to publicly freak out. The spasms began in the lead up to the Lieberman-Lamont primary, with D.C. cocktail party icons Marty Peretz, Lanny Davis, Cokie Roberts, Marshall Wittman, Robert Kagan and Little Stuey Rothenberg throwing temper tantrums and publicly having nervous breakdowns. And now, as shown, these elites are having a full-on, heart-pounding, Tony Soprano-style panic attack. The result is certainly a pretty entertaining show as elite after elite after elite very publicly embarrasses themselves. But it is also something more: it is the very clear, very well-documented admission of just how much hatred these elites really have both for ordinary people's intelligence, and ordinary people's growing political power.

It is no hyperbole to say that these elites hate democracy and democratic movements - they hate them so much they are willing to break the taboo and scream their hatred for democracy in the pages of the largest newspaper in the world. They hate ordinary people so much they are willing to fabricate storylines wholly unsupported by even a shred of fact. But thanks to the fact that democracy still exists in America and elections still happen here, their hatred is no longer the ideology that gets to govern unchallenged. This week in Connecticut we saw the first rumble. And come election day in November, that rumble is going to be an earthquake no matter how much the elites whine, cry and scream.

What we have here is David Brooks paraphrasing something Lieberman supposedly said (and I have no doubt that the paraphrase is essentially true) - so in that case it is Lieberman's idea with Brooks' words.

He tell us its an argment that Lieberman made. That is all he has to say about it. Moreoever, it is not necessarily as anti-democratic as it is being portrayed. The answer could be to get more voters to vote.

... I almost did a google to find a bunch of his writings because based on what I have read from him I would not necessarily think it difficult to find such an example.

But after thinking about it a second, I don't care. Brooks is a fucking asshat, and whether or not he has made specificallty anti-democratic comments is not required to get the overall point of the article.

And you're right that Brook's general views are not required to understand the articles point. But if the article is misrepresenting Brooks, the whole article is suspect, as far as I'm concerned. I don't much care for Brooks, though he on occasion makes sense. But I do care for accuracy and honesty, and I don't find the article in question meets muster.

... you don't like what the article has to say so you find one nit to pick. That's your prerogative.

As for me, I've been watching Washington for a long time and I believe the overall point of the article is absolutely correct.

The folks in Washington, and that is not just Republicans my friend, think of Americans as a nuisance to be managed, not as a people whose will should be implemented. If you think otherwise, well, your perceptions are lacking.

they saw glimmers of this in the MoveOn/Dean movement, and made sure to get them labelled "nuts", and say derisive things. The netroots terrify From and his minions. We must do what we have to do to prevail against them.

18. I love this guy. He needs his own radio show too, along with Krugman and

Conason. What about an hourly show, 5 days a week, with each of these plus two more doing a smart indepth radio show each? Maybe Naomi Klein and Molly Ivins in the other slots.Wouldn't that be so great?

irrelevant that they are taking to dissing grassroots efforts in the Dem Party. The DLC particularly resents "grassroots" because it made Howard Dean Chair of DNC and they just can't get over it. They prefer the "business as usual" approach of losing election after election.

that got the ball rolling, imo. It's one of the reasons (I think) that the media was only too happy to bring down his campaign for their corporate buddies at the DLC. The DLC had other fish to fry, and their agenda gave us another loss at the polls. And, we are left to suffer for four more unnecessary years. Without Sirota and people like him in the media -- ones willing to call the DLC on their bullsh*t, and say what is really what, we'd be out here alone trying to make it work.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.